I have been looking at Section 13 (2). That sub-section is new. Sub-section (1) follows the usual line of providing that this money may be deducted. Sub-section (2) gives power to withhold until the amount of the deduction is ascertained. I can see that that may operate as a hardship, not only on the individual, but also on the Department, because where there is some doubt as to whether a person owes money to a Minister or to the State the officials operating the Act could not pay this money out. They would be obliged to withhold it. If they did pay it out——
Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1949—Committee and Final Stages.
It is merely permissive.
It may be withheld.
But, to my mind "may" in all these cases means "shall". I do not like the introduction of that section because it is new. It is something which does not appear in any other Act.
Would the Deputy be prepared to leave it that, when we come to implement this, we will consider the representations made with regard to the way in which "may" shall operate?
I do not like that.
Perhaps the Deputy would wait, then, until we come to the section?
Very well.
Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Thirteen is what they call the unlucky number. Sub-section (1) of that section is all right. It is similar to what has appeared in all Army Pension Acts up to the present. The Department have found a certain difficulty in administration where a claim may be pending against a man and there may be some doubt about it. The man insists on being paid his pension and the Department have no option but to pay him. The Department had no authority to withhold payment. Now, in case of doubt, this section will give them authority to withhold. That being so, the pension may be withheld for quite a long period while the question as to whether or not there is a claim is under consideration, probably between the Department of Defence and the Department of Finance. That may operate harshly against particular individuals and, for that reason, I do not like to see this sub-section incorporated in the present Bill. If the Minister would agree to consider it in view of what I have said and to delete it in the Seanad, that would meet my point. I do not want to bind him to saying that he will delete it in the Seanad. I ask him to consider it.
It is a matter of practice. The Deputy is correct in saying that that particular sub-section does not appear in the parent Act. I am correct in saying that, whether or not it does appear in the parent Act, the practice has always been to hold up the pension, or the payment of any moneys, until the "all clear" signal is given. We are merely putting into the Act now in an open and above board way, the practice that has always been there. As the Deputy indicated, it does not say that the pension "shall" or "will" be withheld until all these claims are ascertained. It merely gives power to do so. It is purely permissive. A great number of Deputies have show themselves very interested in Army pensions. I am glad that they are interested. If that power is exercised and a case is made that there is undue hardship involved on the individual through the exercise of such powers, I shall certainly not— and I believe no other Minister would —continue to withhold the payment of pension, because there is always another instalment coming on which can be utilised to meet any debt in cases of hardship.
I have come up against it in a certain way. There may be, for instance, that form of claim. Now, under sub-section (1) the Minister is entitled to deduct any moneys that are due to the State. Nobody could object to that. But where it is not established that there is money due to the State and there is a doubt, if the pensioner consults a solicitor and the solicitor writes a pretty stiff letter to the Minister, the pension is released straightaway at the present time, because the Minister has no authority to withhold it. Now, the pensioner may consult a solicitor; the solicitor may write as strong and as abusive a letter as he likes to the Minister, but the Minister has power to withhold it. I do not want to delay the Bill by fighting that particular issue. I have pointed out the defect to the Minister and I would like him to consider it between this and the time when the Bill comes before the Seanad. If he likes to introduce an amendment then, well and good. I have done my duty.
Sections 13 to 16, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; received for final consideration and passed.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution. Seanad Éireann will be notified accordingly.